run through stories about how to get ourselves to look at the stories we're telling about things. So, how will you turn yourself into anger? What will your anger be like? And how will you then let go of it? So, how will you turn yourself into your anger? What will your anger be like? And how will you then let go of it? Will this kind of thing help you or not? If it does, why? If it doesn't, why not? Have you look to see? Questions about this? Can we stand up for a minute? A bit heady? What do you mean, headache?

[01:04]

You mean you got a headache, or you got dizzy, or what? A distinction between the experience of trying to relate to my experience of a situation, and then your diagrams. And when you talk about space, it was wiggly. And he took it away, and there was this space around it. Well, I'm interested in that. And I was trying to stay with your explanation about, at the same time, it's relating it to an experience of anger. So that's what I mean by heady. I couldn't take it back to the experience, so I could see what happens. Well, so for example, let's say you have this thing called anger.

[02:08]

And we have to, first of all, find out what you mean by anger. And by finding out what you mean by anger, we start to define your anger's . So you might say, well, for me, anger is wanting push something away or wanting something to be gone. A basic avoidance or a basic sense of either me avoiding it or it going away from me. That kind of thing. So that's the pattern that you call anger. Okay? Is that alright? Now maybe you won't agree with that so you might have another way of talking about anger. Do you want to talk about another one?

[03:09]

Rage, you may not be able to see that this is implied, that something's over there that's being pushed away or something, and that actually the pushing is inseparable from what's getting pushed. And by pushing something away or wanting it to be burned into vapor, okay, that affirms, it gives more body to the thing that it wants to disappear. So the rage is inseparable from that which it wants to incinerate. But oftentimes that points not clear to the raging, to the person who's experiencing the rage. Name that is not clear to them that they're experiencing the object of the rage as fully or more fully because of the rage than before they had the rage. Now, the problem is in some ways you might say that at the moment of rage you can't do that, but you can.

[04:10]

So that's what, it's the implication that when you experience the rage you're only just taking one side. So you call it rage. But actually, even though you're taking one side, you're actually giving life to the other side. Before you hit this thing, what is it? Do you have any relationship to it all? If you do have a relationship to it, what is it? Is it holding on to it? But unless you hold on to it or look at it or something, it doesn't exist. But when you look at it and you see it and you go, then all of a sudden this hand comes alive. But we tend to say, this is where the action is, this part here. This is the action of this part. But this comes alive. As soon as this touches, this comes alive. But we don't emphasize that side. But the whole thing is both sides. This side, too. And this thing isn't just doing nothing. This thing's sitting here waiting for it. So when you start seeing it that way, it's not even longer just rage.

[05:19]

Rage, in other words, is not just this part. It's also this part. So this thing's going like this. See, and the hand comes. The hand is staying there waiting for it. That's also part of rage. If this moves, there's no rage. This is not rage. This is not rage. You say, well, I'm hitting the air. Well, okay, then the air is what you're hitting. But it's when you hit something, when something becomes the object of it that you get into it. But this is inseparable from it. This is important too. And this thing doesn't have to be here. Somebody's arranging these things to meet. So this is the other side. And as a matter of fact, take this away, okay? Just don't have this happen, all right? Right, there you go. You know, I didn't hit myself. What you're experiencing is what?

[06:19]

You're experiencing the sound. So in other words, is it this or is it that? Which is it that's anger? It's this thing right here that you mean. It's not this. This is not it. It's when these two things come together and do this thing right here. That's what you would call it. It's that collision. It's that banging. It's that hitting. As a matter of fact, one of the words for anger is hitting. But we don't emphasize the fact that It's the noise or it's the thing being there. We emphasize this part, usually. But this is also angry. This is angry too. Here come the room. This guy, it's always going on like this. This guy gets in the way. That's angry too. This wants to stop this thing from going there. This is angry too. We emphasize one side.

[07:19]

Now when you emphasize one side, that's... what it means to be angry. If you emphasize, if now this guy's going like this all the time, you know, and now you're emphasizing this side, then you can experience this as anger. But you have to take either this side stopping this side, and then you're angry, or you have to take this side hitting this side, and then you're angry. If you take both sides at once, or if you see that one depends on the other, then anger doesn't work anymore. That's what it means to see that this implies that and that implies this but usually when we're angry we take one side I say usually when we take anger I mean always when we experience anger you have to take one side in order to do it this is not anger this is not anger we don't find this is not anger but this is actually what's happening

[08:21]

We take the side now. To make anger, you have to have this, it's like this, and this comes over here and pushes this, and this pushes that, and that pushes that. These are angers. So this pushes that, that's anger. But it's constantly changing sides, taking one side or the other. Yes, all of them will have that. Everything, all dharmas are based on dualism. and this is the fundamental one they're based on based on the idea of arising they're based on the idea that they happen in a sense that's the opposite from the not happening a dualistic happening this kind of happening which is different from this kind of happening there's one kind of happening and here's another kind of happening so all of them will be based on that And then each of them will have their own particular characteristic. So they all have this general characteristic.

[09:22]

And they'll each have their own particular characteristic. But their own particular characteristic will be bound dualistically in the same way that their general characteristic is. And that's why, once again, you say, it's easiest to find the Dharma first by its particular characteristic. But then when you find a general characteristic, which you thought was dispensable, actually you find out that a general characteristic is actually more fundamental. So you might not want to dispense with it either. So you might want to say, this is a real characteristic. Why is it a real characteristic? Not because it's real, in a sense, but actually because it shows the unreality of the Dharma better. The arising observations will show you how silly it is to think of the things that are in the first place, not to mention its individual characteristic. I had a very sharp experience a couple weeks ago that illustrates just what you were talking about. I thought I had anger in my dinner table. And what was happening was I was getting up, something was rising up in my head.

[10:28]

And I usually think of anger as taking place in the solar plexus. This was my tingly sensation. Someone was serving me some turnips. And the turnip pot had some greens in it. but I wasn't getting any green and I got pissed. I kept watching and I think it was happening in my head because my head was going forwards. I was waiting to see if they were going to get me some weeds or not. But I was also rather calm at the same time. So I could feel this thing coming. Something in me asked, what's going on? And I could see that I had made this very finely tuned discrimination in this personal didn't discriminate the way that I do when I serve people. That's what the anger was contention on. And the minute that I saw that I was doing that, the whole thing just, what I had thought was the arising of the anger started coming down. My head assumed this normal place.

[11:30]

But the dissolution of the anger was this thing that I had called it rising up. Or I could see it all happened in such a short time, It was based on how I thought it was rising up, which was also based on the concept. And the whole thing came apart the minute the concept was blown, the discrimination. The minute that got clear, then the whole thing just dissolved. It was very, very... But it was that characteristic of arising in a place that I usually don't think of in a bigger place. So anyway, that's a little bit on the rising. Any other things at this point? Do you want to go on to the secondary characteristics? Right.

[12:56]

Anything else? Okay. Now you want to talk about secondary characteristics? Yeah, well, the The characteristics are talking about a dreamed up phenomena. The characteristics are dreamed up upon a dream. The dream, they're signs of a dream. They're characteristics of a dream. They're characteristics of our thinking. And then the secondary characteristics will be further characteristics of the characteristics of our thinking. Which they also say, which they also say are things in themselves.

[13:59]

Well, they really are, though, because they're a rising of a rising. It's called a secondary characteristic, but it really is a rising. But it is a Dharma. You see? So... This is a dharma called faith or something, okay? It has an arising. This arising of it, for the Vibhashikas, that's an important event. It's an important phenomenon. It's very important. I think it is. Don't you think it's important? It's very important. So they say it's a real thing. Now, this real thing also has an arising. When the faith comes up, then that real thing, the fact that it came up, there's a thing called a faith that has a particular characteristic, but this faith also has a general characteristic, namely that it's happening now. That's important that it's happening now, rather than just an idea. It's really arisen, actually. That's important.

[15:00]

And that important thing also has an arising. That's the arising of arising. Well, in one sense, you can understand the arising and rising is that, how about your awareness of the arising and the arising? How about your awareness of the arising of faith? Okay? Is that what you mean by? Well, start there. You can see that faith has arisen, okay? And then, and now you see that faith has arisen, then you see there's this thing, in addition to faith arising, there's this characteristic that has arisen. Okay? Can you see the difference between the two? Yes, if you can see that. If you can see that, if you want to make that into a thing, then when you make that into a thing, then that has an arising too.

[16:01]

The moment that you see that phenomena of the arising of the, first you see the faith. Once you see the faith, you can say, well, that has an arising. I can see that. I can see the faith arising. All right? Is that okay? I'm not saying that yet. If you want me to say that, I'll say that. I'm just trying to get you to tune in to how you can dream up this thing. It's a kind of... I'm just tuning in to the mind that makes it up. Okay? So if you tune in to my mind as I make it up, you'll see how to make it up. Want to do that? Separate myself from what? Do you want to do it or do you want to have a theory about it?

[17:03]

What do you want to do? Because I'm trying to show you how to do it. If you want to talk about theory, you have to get straight what you want to do. Well, you can try again. But what do you want? What do you want to do? Do you want to see how to do it? To see why they do it? Or do you want to do both? Well, I don't understand exactly what you're saying. Okay, well... You were trying to show me how to do it. Okay, here's how I do it. Okay, give rise to faith. Can you make some faith in me? Can I do that? I don't feel it coming on. You don't feel it coming on? Well, that's the beginning of it, okay? If you don't feel it coming on, then you have some idea of what it is. Okay? So now, what is it? Take that and give rise to that, okay? All right?

[18:05]

Now, did you see it come up? Okay. Okay, now that's coming up. thing that came up, okay? Now call that something. Experience that, okay? Now experience that thing that's coming up. That's coming up of coming up. And that's a little bit different from coming up of faith. And they say that they choose to call that an event in itself. Now, the criticism of that will be that you can do that ad infinitum. And they say, no, it's not necessary. Just once is enough. And the reason for saying that, I would say, is two. One reason is that it's stupid to keep doing an outfit, and everybody can see that. And that's a criticism of any logical, any theoretical system if it would do that. All right? If it would do that, that would be a kind of sickness.

[19:06]

It's not good for people to do that. All over the world they agree that it's bad for your nervous system. But another reason for doing it is that, well, It's the same reason. Logically speaking, because it's bad for people to do it, all logics have agreed to toss it out. It's kind of like a cesspool of logic. Just, it's out, you know, don't do it. But the reason why they don't do it, and even if they did do it, we wouldn't do it, is because it's not good for us. We don't like it. So don't get into advenfinity. It's a bad place to be. The mind doesn't like to be there. It's just sort of a, it's a kind of appendix of the mind or something. It's a... If you use logical mind, it has these sort of dangerous implications. And one of them is just going to go . As soon as you start going there, it's cut. That's it. But once is, they want you to do it once. They say once is OK. To see the arising, that's fine. And also, even to see the arising of the arising, that's fine.

[20:09]

But don't do it another time. Just twice is enough. All the other ones are just unnecessary, even though the mind could keep looping around indefinitely. the remaining ones are actually theoretically not necessary. And the reason why they're not theoretically not necessary is because their theory doesn't want it to be necessary, because they think it's ugly. So they stop there. But otherwise you could keep going, but they say you don't have to, that the job's done. So any other questions on secondary characteristics? Well, even in the moment, the implication of ad infinitum absurdum is there. You can see it in a moment, you can go and feel lousy.

[21:11]

It's implied there. The structure of the logic is complete in a moment. And you feel quite, in a moment, if you look at something, you feel quite, it looks quite different to see it tapering off into infinity. I'll just see it going boop, boop and stopping right there. It's different. have a different feeling about it. One sort of feels like meditation, the other one feels like, what do you call it, space out. So you can tell the difference in a moment. And partly because one is a concept that goes over moments so far that you feel sick. But it's in the moment that the concept can be visualized. So it's not necessarily over moments, but rather you think it's way over moments. That's why you don't want to do it. got nothing to do with, it's got so little to do with present experience that it's just crossed off. Any others in this? Janet, do you guys know? Yeah, you can do all four once, all 16, one level of secondariness, 16 secondary characteristics.

[22:44]

But then you don't do it the next time because the next time is not necessary. The next time really doesn't do anything. And they can show that. You can make a chart to show that it doesn't really, it's really just, you know, what you do then is you, if you make the chart, you can just, as you do, you do the arising and you have the four characteristics of arising, okay? And you have the, and you have the maintaining, four characteristics of maintaining, and so on. That's right. So then you go through those 16, you cross out, because not all of them apply. But then, after you do that, if you go to the next level, it could show that those don't make sense either, that they're already covered by the eight, that the eight will explain the next level. It explains 16, but also if you tried to make the arising of the arising of the arising, that that's already included in the 12 that you have, the 4 plus the 8.

[23:53]

That there's no further phenomena, actually. Do you know what I mean? In other words, if you took the arising of arising of arising is already included. You could stop anywhere. So they stop at 12. They stop at 4 plus 8. You can have one. Just a rising is enough. Just a rising is plenty. Once you have a rising, all this other stuff follows. Once there's a rising, the idea of maintenance is there or not, depending on whether you want it. Deterioration is there, whether you want it, if you want it. Falling. A rising implies everything else. But they've chosen sort of the tone of the Abhidharma, the Vaibhashikas, is to do 12. They have 75 dharmas. Other schools have 81 or 58. They have 12 kinds of consciousness, and then they have 20 kinds of consciousness.

[25:00]

The Theravadans have 89. Their tone is they like 12. They want to play with 12. At least that's what Vasubandhu said, but I can assure you this. It's an argument about the Mahabhi Basha. Some people say, well, I really need 15. Some of you may say, no, you only need six. Someone else will say, well, you need 16 plus two and a half because of this and that. Why? They'll have their reasons. Everybody, they have to make a buck. How can they have four phases? Or how can they have three phases? That's what the Vaibhashikas say is a moment. A moment is a thing that has a rising duration, deterioration, and falling.

[26:05]

That's what a moment is. So those four dharmas are... take place within this man alone yes which is special characteristic of them because anger uh just seems to just have anger happen anger this foul action of anger happens in a moment but it goes through four phases according to them and uh some other schools as i say would say it only goes through three phases And other schools would say it only goes through two phases, arising and falling. But falling is nothing other than disappearing. So it just arises. And then the next thing arises. So arising, arising, arising, arising. Moment after moment, it's just arising. But you can say arising.

[27:08]

This one gets out of the way and that one comes up. That's the way these people like to think of it. This one comes up and it's important that it gets out of the way because it's getting out of the way. causes the next one coming up. It isn't the arising of this that causes the next one to arise. It's the going away of this that causes the next one to arise. And then once they get into this and this, then they have a little space in between. To separate the rising and falling. And they even have deterioration. It's quite... It's interesting. Different kinds of minds, you know. So there's not any spaces in between.

[28:22]

Are you saying if a person doesn't meditate they want people to see anger? Do you think when a person gets a thought that they're angry or when a person gets angry thought? Do you think when a person's angry or when a person thinks that they're angry? Which do you mean? Yes? What about that? There's a difference. Which do you mean? That's right. Realizing that you're angry is meditation.

[29:23]

Just being angry is... Everybody does that, and it's not necessarily of any use. What's the difference if you're angry? There's no difference, and to know that is a further meditation. LAUGHTER Okay, so do you want, is there a general consensus that we've done enough on the rising, maintenance, falling, and you want to, is there a general feeling you want to study the language business? Okay, so next time, you don't want to? You don't? You'll come to class? Can you give a report on this caucus? Thank you. So next week, Jonathan will give us a little, little something on the on these um these three diamonds so we'll spend probably i think we'll take uh all next week to do these oh by the way you might as part of your reading for these dharmas

[30:50]

They're discussed in Dr. Jaini's article, his article on these three dharmas. Isn't it on reserve? Yeah. There's not, there's not, it's not, no, it's not Arba Dama Depot. It's an article on these, on these. Anyway, it'll have a big label on it called Jonathan's Article. No, it'll have a... It'll be recognizable. Maybe Jill should have it. Make it available somehow. Anyone who wants to read it can come over to 308H. So anyway, you might read that... You might read that Dr. Jaini's article, too, as part of this to give you some... on it.

[31:51]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_79.21